Constructing commercially successful art

On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 1:02:44 PM UTC+1, Melanie van Buren wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rhVcq-5RZ8
Stop The Negative Voice And Write Great Stories - Barbara Seymour
Giordano [FULL INTERVIEW]

Not photography but an interesting life story applicable to other
artistic and technical endeavours. Perfect is the enemy of good. Embrace
your bad art. Have fun! Discover what you like. Enjoy what you do. Find
your own voice. Discover what's in your heart.

Avoid the extremes as the story gets warped. What we perceive becomes
what we believe and we can get stuck. When something is discordant or
wrong we can feel this in our body, and it's important to listen to this.

Every time I go online very few photography channels step beyond
equipment or technique. There's nothing really new there you wouldn't
get out of flipping through a book for five minutes. There's nothing
about the art. It's everything but the art. Developing the artistic eye
is a process where you fight bad habits and begin to see the potential
in the world. Create a new groove and take the pressure off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pa2XgsJS3I
Fine Art Photography

Walking through this video and addressing the main points as they are made:

The world has changed and is changing for my business but not in the end
of the world ways some people may have been scared into thinking. Images
still have value and they say things emotionally and politically which
is something I'm very aware of. People still buy my images and they are
good enough for marketing purposes at the level they are at.

The discussion this youtube segues into the difference between
commercial art and fine art, the fact both are difficult and the
requirements and ways of getting noticed in both markets is similar but
different. As for galleries the best artists are established and the
majority of them are dead. My business, obviously works differently to this.

I've been experimenting with black and white and colour, and different
compositions and concepts, as well as curating my own work and comparing
it to what is available in the market. It's a bit of a balance between
narrative in the first video and management in the second video. Yes,
I'm starting on the bottom but shooting for the top and because there
are so many factors to calculate, which is impossible, developing a feel
for what interests me and makes me happy and what has value. Viewing
galleries and auctioning work of new artists is effectively the same
process I am managing and this is valid. Yes, it can be difficult and
competitive and **** stuff unbelievably sells well just like the fine
art and movie worlds. The crap you have to put up with is similar but so
are the pluses and opportunities.

As for closing comments in this video I'm still working through the
direction I'm taking and also taking "aspirational" portfolio photos of
where I want to be and less about where I have been. In fact a few weeks
ago I deleted everything which I had available to make way for my new
portfolio collections.

Supplementary material covering the directing and high concepts (i.e.
"male gaze") and dynamic composition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDvC6tzrJro
96-Minute 'Masterclass' Interview with Alfred Hitchcock on Filmmaking (1976)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il8fSKa5Y5c
Kubrick’s Low-Budget Masterpiece: The Cinematography of A Clockwork
Orange (1971)


--
Melanie van Buren

https://sanet.st/blogs/tomorrowland2...y.3610245.html

AI can/will probably soon radically transform our concept of art and creativity and culture
in general. Personally I enjoy collecting art and creating things as well, but I think we have
to reconsider a lot of traditionally held ideas about creativity and originality.
One example is the way the digital realm renders the idea of an original artwork untenable.
In the sense that any copy is identical to the original digital artwork.
Another aspect is the fact that the creations of others can serve as the starting material
for your own creations. It would be unthinkable to go into a museum and start modifying some
original painting by applying spray paint to create a new artwork, but with digitized versions
of existing artworks, people are free to remix them as they please and this adds a whole
new interactive dimension to the appreciation of art.

https://i.imgur.com/mrosGvK.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/5FX6r.jpeg

On 20/01/2021 23:58, sobriquet wrote:
On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 1:02:44 PM UTC+1, Melanie van Buren wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rhVcq-5RZ8
Stop The Negative Voice And Write Great Stories - Barbara Seymour
Giordano [FULL INTERVIEW]

Not photography but an interesting life story applicable to other
artistic and technical endeavours. Perfect is the enemy of good. Embrace
your bad art. Have fun! Discover what you like. Enjoy what you do. Find
your own voice. Discover what's in your heart.

Avoid the extremes as the story gets warped. What we perceive becomes
what we believe and we can get stuck. When something is discordant or
wrong we can feel this in our body, and it's important to listen to this.

Every time I go online very few photography channels step beyond
equipment or technique. There's nothing really new there you wouldn't
get out of flipping through a book for five minutes. There's nothing
about the art. It's everything but the art. Developing the artistic eye
is a process where you fight bad habits and begin to see the potential
in the world. Create a new groove and take the pressure off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pa2XgsJS3I
Fine Art Photography

Walking through this video and addressing the main points as they are made:

The world has changed and is changing for my business but not in the end
of the world ways some people may have been scared into thinking. Images
still have value and they say things emotionally and politically which
is something I'm very aware of. People still buy my images and they are
good enough for marketing purposes at the level they are at.

The discussion this youtube segues into the difference between
commercial art and fine art, the fact both are difficult and the
requirements and ways of getting noticed in both markets is similar but
different. As for galleries the best artists are established and the
majority of them are dead. My business, obviously works differently to this.

I've been experimenting with black and white and colour, and different
compositions and concepts, as well as curating my own work and comparing
it to what is available in the market. It's a bit of a balance between
narrative in the first video and management in the second video. Yes,
I'm starting on the bottom but shooting for the top and because there
are so many factors to calculate, which is impossible, developing a feel
for what interests me and makes me happy and what has value. Viewing
galleries and auctioning work of new artists is effectively the same
process I am managing and this is valid. Yes, it can be difficult and
competitive and **** stuff unbelievably sells well just like the fine
art and movie worlds. The crap you have to put up with is similar but so
are the pluses and opportunities.

As for closing comments in this video I'm still working through the
direction I'm taking and also taking "aspirational" portfolio photos of
where I want to be and less about where I have been. In fact a few weeks
ago I deleted everything which I had available to make way for my new
portfolio collections.

Supplementary material covering the directing and high concepts (i.e.
"male gaze") and dynamic composition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDvC6tzrJro
96-Minute 'Masterclass' Interview with Alfred Hitchcock on Filmmaking (1976)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il8fSKa5Y5c
Kubrick’s Low-Budget Masterpiece: The Cinematography of A Clockwork
Orange (1971)

https://sanet.st/blogs/tomorrowland2...y.3610245.html

AI can/will probably soon radically transform our concept of art and creativity and culture
in general. Personally I enjoy collecting art and creating things as well, but I think we have
to reconsider a lot of traditionally held ideas about creativity and originality.
One example is the way the digital realm renders the idea of an original artwork untenable.
In the sense that any copy is identical to the original digital artwork.
Another aspect is the fact that the creations of others can serve as the starting material
for your own creations. It would be unthinkable to go into a museum and start modifying some
original painting by applying spray paint to create a new artwork, but with digitized versions
of existing artworks, people are free to remix them as they please and this adds a whole
new interactive dimension to the appreciation of art.

https://i.imgur.com/mrosGvK.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/5FX6r.jpeg

Digital can be faster and digital can be cheaper but I'm not sure it's
all that different. All of what you suggest in one form or another has
been done or an equivalent been done before digital arrived on the
scene. Also algorithmically produced work is not copyrightable. The most
compelling fake doesn't have the same value as an original work at a
neuro-psychological level. So there's issues of economics and
perception. Amateurs and crowds may have a happy accident but it's rare
and more luck than design.

Now my disagreement is out of the way it doesn't mean value cannot be
created by your proposal. We're just not there yet and it's unlikely to
overturn things.

Personal point of view: I've spent most of my life with computers to one
degree or another and quite frankly sick of the things. There's a whole
analogue world and life to explore and I'm putting more into that.
Digital is way off replacing me or my work by a million miles and even
if it might I suspect the people who may experience this haven't been
born yet. I doubt it's going to replace fine art in a hurry.

--
Melanie van Buren

In article ,
sobriquet wrote:

Personally I enjoy stealing art and creating things as well,

ftfy

In article , Melanie van Buren
wrote:


Also algorithmically produced work is not copyrightable.

it is by the person who created the algorithm.

On Thursday, January 21, 2021 at 1:26:19 AM UTC+1, Melanie van Buren wrote:
On 20/01/2021 23:58, sobriquet wrote:
On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 1:02:44 PM UTC+1, Melanie van Buren wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rhVcq-5RZ8
Stop The Negative Voice And Write Great Stories - Barbara Seymour
Giordano [FULL INTERVIEW]

Not photography but an interesting life story applicable to other
artistic and technical endeavours. Perfect is the enemy of good. Embrace
your bad art. Have fun! Discover what you like. Enjoy what you do. Find
your own voice. Discover what's in your heart.

Avoid the extremes as the story gets warped. What we perceive becomes
what we believe and we can get stuck. When something is discordant or
wrong we can feel this in our body, and it's important to listen to this.

Every time I go online very few photography channels step beyond
equipment or technique. There's nothing really new there you wouldn't
get out of flipping through a book for five minutes. There's nothing
about the art. It's everything but the art. Developing the artistic eye
is a process where you fight bad habits and begin to see the potential
in the world. Create a new groove and take the pressure off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pa2XgsJS3I
Fine Art Photography

Walking through this video and addressing the main points as they are made:

The world has changed and is changing for my business but not in the end
of the world ways some people may have been scared into thinking. Images
still have value and they say things emotionally and politically which
is something I'm very aware of. People still buy my images and they are
good enough for marketing purposes at the level they are at.

The discussion this youtube segues into the difference between
commercial art and fine art, the fact both are difficult and the
requirements and ways of getting noticed in both markets is similar but
different. As for galleries the best artists are established and the
majority of them are dead. My business, obviously works differently to this.

I've been experimenting with black and white and colour, and different
compositions and concepts, as well as curating my own work and comparing
it to what is available in the market. It's a bit of a balance between
narrative in the first video and management in the second video. Yes,
I'm starting on the bottom but shooting for the top and because there
are so many factors to calculate, which is impossible, developing a feel
for what interests me and makes me happy and what has value. Viewing
galleries and auctioning work of new artists is effectively the same
process I am managing and this is valid. Yes, it can be difficult and
competitive and **** stuff unbelievably sells well just like the fine
art and movie worlds. The crap you have to put up with is similar but so
are the pluses and opportunities.

As for closing comments in this video I'm still working through the
direction I'm taking and also taking "aspirational" portfolio photos of
where I want to be and less about where I have been. In fact a few weeks
ago I deleted everything which I had available to make way for my new
portfolio collections.

Supplementary material covering the directing and high concepts (i.e.
"male gaze") and dynamic composition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDvC6tzrJro
96-Minute 'Masterclass' Interview with Alfred Hitchcock on Filmmaking (1976)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il8fSKa5Y5c
Kubrick’s Low-Budget Masterpiece: The Cinematography of A Clockwork
Orange (1971)

https://sanet.st/blogs/tomorrowland2...y.3610245.html

AI can/will probably soon radically transform our concept of art and creativity and culture
in general. Personally I enjoy collecting art and creating things as well, but I think we have
to reconsider a lot of traditionally held ideas about creativity and originality.
One example is the way the digital realm renders the idea of an original artwork untenable.
In the sense that any copy is identical to the original digital artwork..
Another aspect is the fact that the creations of others can serve as the starting material
for your own creations. It would be unthinkable to go into a museum and start modifying some
original painting by applying spray paint to create a new artwork, but with digitized versions
of existing artworks, people are free to remix them as they please and this adds a whole
new interactive dimension to the appreciation of art.

https://i.imgur.com/mrosGvK.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/5FX6r.jpeg
Digital can be faster and digital can be cheaper but I'm not sure it's
all that different. All of what you suggest in one form or another has
been done or an equivalent been done before digital arrived on the
scene. Also algorithmically produced work is not copyrightable. The most
compelling fake doesn't have the same value as an original work at a
neuro-psychological level. So there's issues of economics and
perception. Amateurs and crowds may have a happy accident but it's rare
and more luck than design.

People tend to stick to old habits, so they try to emulate the analogue world
by things like limited editions and licensing and nonsense like that. But you might
as well license your soul or spend money on an insurance that guarantees
satisfaction in the afterlife.
The bottom line is that money is an outdated invention (because there
is no scarcity in the digital realm) and anyone can make their own money
by coming up with their own cryptocurrency.


Now my disagreement is out of the way it doesn't mean value cannot be
created by your proposal. We're just not there yet and it's unlikely to
overturn things.

I think the music industry provides a nice example of what is going to
happen to all other forms of media. Basically it's all free and people
can exchange it as they see fit. The recording mafia are still trying
to impose their controls by harassing youtube downloading but
they are just making fun of themselves and they know their power is
longe gone.
We have something like spotify where people have access to more or
less everything that has ever been produced and people 'pay' for
free access by being harassed by force-fed ads, or they can just
download all stuff for free via p2p filesharing and the chances of
running into legal issues over that are virtually none.
So the end result is that our computers have now become a
celestial jukebox.

https://torrentfreak.com/how-the-mp3...dustry-210117/


Personal point of view: I've spent most of my life with computers to one
degree or another and quite frankly sick of the things. There's a whole
analogue world and life to explore and I'm putting more into that.
Digital is way off replacing me or my work by a million miles and even
if it might I suspect the people who may experience this haven't been
born yet. I doubt it's going to replace fine art in a hurry.

The concept of fine art is bunk. Who gets to decide what fine art is?
Is this fine art because it hangs in a museum or because people are willing
to pay a lot for it at an auction?

https://i.imgur.com/wk1h00R.jpg

Is Banksy fine art because he's a famous anonymous artist and his works
gets protected by putting it behind a protective cover against other street
artists that might want to put their art on top of it?

https://i.imgur.com/MoQTm24.jpg


--
Melanie van Buren

On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 7:37:13 PM UTC-5, nospam wrote:
In article , Melanie van Buren
wrote:


Also algorithmically produced work is not copyrightable.

it is by the person who created the algorithm.

A friend has been working on an algorithm that IIRC he calls his
“De Vinci� code...or something like that. It takes a digital photo
and stylistically “reprints� it in digital brush strokes that mimic
the style of an old master oil painting. The beta test runs I saw
a year ago were quite impressive...blew away the PS paint filter.

-hh

In article ,
-hh wrote:

Also algorithmically produced work is not copyrightable.

it is by the person who created the algorithm.

A friend has been working on an algorithm that IIRC he calls his
³De Vinci² code...or something like that. It takes a digital photo
and stylistically ³reprints² it in digital brush strokes that mimic
the style of an old master oil painting. The beta test runs I saw
a year ago were quite impressive...blew away the PS paint filter.

i read the original statement as a new work created by an algorithm.

what you describe is a modification of an existing work, one which is
likely copyrighted by someone other than who created the algorithm.

On 1/20/2021 10:49 PM, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 7:37:13 PM UTC-5, nospam wrote:
In article , Melanie van Buren
wrote:


Also algorithmically produced work is not copyrightable.

it is by the person who created the algorithm.

A friend has been working on an algorithm that IIRC he calls his
“De Vinci” code...or something like that. It takes a digital photo
and stylistically “reprints” it in digital brush strokes that mimic
the style of an old master oil painting. The beta test runs I saw
a year ago were quite impressive...blew away the PS paint filter.

-hh

Next Gen:
A mechanical engine to oil paint the
output of that algorithm.
~~
Are we all that far from creating such a device?
--
==
Later...
Ron C
--

On Jan 20, 2021, Ron C wrote
(in ):

On 1/20/2021 10:49 PM, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 7:37:13 PM UTC-5, nospam wrote:
In , Melanie van Buren
wrote:


Also algorithmically produced work is not copyrightable.

it is by the person who created the algorithm.

A friend has been working on an algorithm that IIRC he calls his
“De Vinci� code...or something like that. It takes a digital photo
and stylistically “reprints� it in digital brush strokes that mimic
the style of an old master oil painting. The beta test runs I saw
a year ago were quite impressive...blew away the PS paint filter.

-hh
Next Gen:
A mechanical engine to oil paint the
output of that algorithm.
Are we all that far from creating such a device?

We are long past creating such a device. All you have to do is look at modifying the robotic paint systems used in the automotive, and other manufacturing industries. All it should take is some imaginative programing.

https://www.graco.com/us/en/in-plant-manufacturing/products/liquid-coating/paint-line-automation/automated-paint-systems.html

https://www.mwes.com/robotic-painting-system-1
--
Regards,
Savageduck

On 21/01/2021 00:37, nospam wrote:
In article , Melanie van Buren
wrote:


Also algorithmically produced work is not copyrightable.

it is by the person who created the algorithm.

No it is not. Please do check the law before mouthing off.


--
Melanie van Buren